EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2153
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Maximloio58
1 Post
| ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On February 28 2020 23:42 mierin wrote: I kind of want Maru and Inno to lose just for the chaos factor. Inno for President, who cares of black/woman Presidents, I want a robot one damnit | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On February 28 2020 13:41 LegalLord wrote: The only candidates who, at this point, have a path to the nomination are Biden and Sanders. What kind of a statement is this? How can “having a path” be both determined by the circumstances now and subject to change in the future? Are you doing a Nate Silver thing here where you are running mental models with current data that are open to change with more data? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 28 2020 06:25 ChristianS wrote: I don’t think the plurality-but-no-majority scenarios are all as clear-cut as you seem to. Imagine, for instance, an outcome like this (purely hypothetical): Biden: 35% Bernie: 30% Warren: 18% Bloomberg: 8% Steyer: 7% Other candidates: 2% Warren and Steyer have endorsed Bernie, Bloomberg and other candidates have endorsed Biden. You could say that Biden has a clear plurality, and should be the nominee. On the other hand, reallocate the other votes to who their candidate endorsed, and Bernie wins 55-45. I’d probably look at that and say Biden’s plurality is big enough he’s probably the voters’ choice. But on the other hand, same scenario but Biden and Bernie are 33% and 32%? Easily should be Bernie. Don’t get me wrong, if the voters’ intention is clear and the DNC goes against it (say, Bernie has 49% over Biden’s 35%, and they take Biden), that’s fucked up. But I also think “whoever has a plurality should take it” is a bad rule too. I'm not down with this. This allows for candidates to decide, which I am not comfortable with. When voters make a choice to choose Buttigieg over Biden, it might be for a reason where Biden is their #2, but maybe Warren or Bernie is that person's #2. We have a REALLY diverse set of voters right now. On the Buttigieg subreddit, tons of posters are against "the establishment" and would not tolerate a Biden nominee. But lots of older Buttigieg voters like Biden. So the idea that the candidate would get to choose is madness. They don't have the right to distribute the votes they've received. The only way this would be acceptable would be if it was already understood ahead of time who these candidates would give their votes to down the road. As it currently stands, it would remove power from voters. Instead, I believe whoever wins the plurality of votes should be given the nomination. Whether it is 31-30, 40-10, whatever the case. There should be some system where whoever gets the plurality is able to solicit other candidates for their support. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1947 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 29 2020 02:28 Broetchenholer wrote: Coalitions are important. The American weird fetish for winner takes it all is very strange to me. You should stop burning bridges, acting like 35% of the vote means your favorite should be handed the nomination. Instead, focus on how to receive a mandate from more than 50%. Coalition is fine in a multiparty system. But the coalition should be led by the winner IMO. So let's say Bernie gets 40%. Bernie would be required to get 11% additional delegates by changing his platform to convince whoever would get him over 51%. I'd be fine with that. But there is intrinsic democratic value in disproportionately rewarding the winner, IMO | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
- Conservative 45% - Centre-left 40% - Greens 15% So you end up with a coalition led by the centre left and backed by the greens. This is a normal and intended situation. This whole thing feels very... American. All these unwritten rules around FPTP suddenly taking on the weight of gospel for people who, I think, are fully aware of the issues with FPTP in other contexts. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On February 29 2020 07:55 Belisarius wrote: Coalitions often aren't, though. It's very normal to get something like: - Conservative 45% - Centre-left 40% - Greens 15% So you end up with a coalition led by the centre left and backed by the greens. This is normal and is an intended situation. This whole thing feels very... American. All these unwritten rules around FPTP suddenly taking on the weight of gospel for people who, I think, are fully aware of the issues with FPTP in other contexts. The problem is that voters didn't vote assuming a coalition setting. People have a variety of second choices. Lots of buttigieg voters would be ok with biden but not bernie. Lots of Buttigieg voters will never vote for Biden. How many Biden voters would go to Sanders vs Bloomberg? The problem is, this is not the situation in which voters participated. The only voter information we have is who they chose. That is the only information we should act on. Allowing candidates to choose who takes their delegates would be stepping beyond their jurisdiction (ethically) in my eyes. I understand how the rules work, but I am saying they are rules that I find untenable and that the DNC exercising those rules would force me to leave the party. Second election with only the top 2? Sign me up. That would mean voter wishes are the only data we listen to. I am fine with that. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
Technically, voters vote for a local delegate who they trust to represent their interests at the convention. That person has been delegated the authority to make choices for them, in the event that their preferred candidate is not on the stage by the time the delegated votes are to be cast. That is how the system was intended to work, and how it would have worked if each delegate came from a small 1800s town where everyone knew each others' grandmas. In a modern context, voters believe they are voting for a candidate, and believe themselves able to change to a different candidate as things develop. In reality they are still separated from the convention by their nominees, who were intended to have quite a lot of agency to deal with the various situations that might arise at a contested convention three days' travel away. This is a collision between America's archaic voting system and its voters' modern expectations. It is not a solution to import rules from the equally archaic general and demand that those be enforced instead. | ||
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/mcgahn-subpoena-trump.html This second article points out that the courts said they lack the power to make a decision, not that the president necessarily has "absolute immunity:" https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling/index.html If the absolute immunity argument stands, then I don't see how the president can be investigated anymore. He can just shut down all executive branch led investigations, refuse to let congress have any information or testimony, and assume that he won't get impeached/removed because congress won't have sufficient evidence to act on. This all seems like a big deal. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On February 29 2020 09:25 micronesia wrote: Can't read the times articles so going off of the CNN one. Congressional Democrats had filed a law suit because Don McGhan had refused to testify (at the behest of the president). As far as I understand it, the Democrats argued that the president cannot stop his entire branch from testifying to congress whenever he feels like. An appeals court just ruled 2-1 in favor of Trump's position. If this stands, it seems like all testimony to congress by the executive branch, likely including providing documents, will be optional. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/mcgahn-subpoena-trump.html This second article points out that the courts said they lack the power to make a decision, not that the president necessarily has "absolute immunity:" https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/mcgahn-testimony-ruling/index.html If the absolute immunity argument stands, then I don't see how the president can be investigated anymore. He can just shut down all executive branch led investigations, refuse to let congress have any information or testimony, and assume that he won't get impeached/removed because congress won't have sufficient evidence to act on. This all seems like a big deal. Sounds like the court is telling Democrats that they need to actually use the tools they have to force testimony when the Executive refuses. Aka Contempt of Congress and indefinite jail time until they comply to testify. Can't just run to the courts and tell them to handle it instead. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14047 Posts
On February 29 2020 09:53 JimmiC wrote: I guess then it is something that can get people motivated to vote, since there is no other way to legally remove a President no matter what he does. It will be interesting to see voter turnout for the general, I can't remember anything this contentious ever but NA voting % are always so depressingly low even this level of interest might not matter when it comes to actual numbers when it comes to the election. Do the various states have any obligation to be prepared if say 80 or 90% of people come out? Or do they prepare like they have in the past and then if actual high %'s show up will it be an absolute shit show? Most urban voters have a hard time voting as it is let alone if the turnout increases significantly. Florida is a constant disaster in general elections and it wouldn't shock me that the end of the Republic comes as a result of lost legitimacy due to a disaster such as 90% turnout. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23469 Posts
Bright side is none of the other candidates did better than Bernie with Black or Latino people so it is definitively a 2 person race with a Bloomberg wildcard now. | ||
| ||
